08:02:14 <yasufum> #startmeeting tacker
08:02:14 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Sep 14 08:02:14 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is yasufum. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:02:14 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:02:14 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tacker'
08:02:39 <yasufum> There are two topic on etherpad today.
08:02:42 <yasufum> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-meeting
08:03:31 <yasufum> The first one is my topic
08:03:51 <yasufum> So, let get start it from the first item.
08:05:34 <yasufum> As discussed in the previous vPTG, dropping lower-constraints was stopped because it’s still useful sometimes.
08:06:00 <yasufum> I remember this discussion was only for tacker, right?
08:06:52 <yasufum> didn’t for tacker-horizon and python-tackerclinet.
08:07:54 <takahashi-tsc> I think so.
08:08:22 <ueha> According to the xena ptg etherpad, it doesn't mention the sub project.
08:08:22 <ueha> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-xena-ptg#L193
08:08:28 <yasufum> Now, ropping lower constraints test has proposed.
08:08:31 <yasufum> thx
08:09:02 <yasufum> So, I would like to know your thinking of about this proposal.
08:09:39 <yasufum> In my opinion, we don’t need to do so strict tests tacker-horizon and python-tackerclient actually.
08:10:49 <yasufum> simple and light-weight implementation comparing with tacker.
08:11:46 <ueha> It is useful to leave the lower-constraints test of the tacker, but not the sub project. right?
08:13:13 <yasufum> I’m not sure it’s surely useful actually, but may be yes :)
08:13:41 <ueha> If so, other projects have dropped lower-constraints, so I think we can drop it as well for tacker-horizon and python-tackerclient.
08:13:55 <takahashi-tsc> +1
08:15:06 <yasufum> Any other comment or objection?
08:15:35 <yasufum> good
08:15:57 <manpreetk> Just a thought could we check other horizon plugin as well.
08:16:27 <manpreetk> As horizon still has lower-constraint file.
08:17:18 <yasufum> Sure, I’ve just found it.
08:22:13 <yasufum> There are many horizon plugin projects, such as xxx-horizon or xxx-dashboard, and some of them already might dropped lower constraints.
08:25:00 <yasufum> I think we don’t need to consider the decision of horizon now because it’s not related with tests in tacker-horizon.
08:26:36 <yasufum> But might need to have a look about other horizon related projects as examples for making our decision.
08:26:39 <manpreetk> Totally agree with you, considering above points we could drop l-c from tacker-horizon.
08:27:19 <yasufum> yes.
08:29:22 <manpreetk> I could check/investigate other plugins and update with opinion. WDYT?
08:29:42 <yasufum> OK, if you have any other comment, please tell me on the patch review.
08:29:52 <manpreetk> Ok
08:29:55 <yasufum> manpreetk: thanks
08:30:00 <yasufum> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker-horizon/+/789114
08:31:28 <manpreetk> Sure, thats from my side. Thanks
08:31:49 <yasufum> For python-tackerclient, no update for dropping has not suggested yet, but I will do when appropriate.
08:31:52 <yasufum> Thanks
08:32:39 <yasufum> OK, go to the next topic.
08:32:53 <yasufum> h-asahina: could you share your topic?
08:33:19 <h_asahina> thanks, sure.
08:34:14 <h_asahina> As I mentioned on the etherpad, I'd like to confirm whether or not the patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/799022 supports multi-tenant policy completely in LCM operations.
08:35:16 <h_asahina> In other words, do we have to do any additional work to support multi-tenancy in LCM operation or we don't have to do anything?
08:36:59 <h_asahina> Does anyone know the answer?
08:39:10 <takahashi-tsc> w-juso, do you make the plan as spec. So you can explain the answer base on the spec.
08:39:44 <yasufum> this one, right?
08:39:46 <yasufum> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker-specs/+/787135
08:39:54 <w-juso> I has implementing the 1 and 2 of proposed change int https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker-specs/+/787135.
08:41:45 <w-juso> while, there are support still 3 of proposed change.
08:42:59 <w-juso> These are the only three plans that I am planning.
08:44:41 <h_asahina> I suppose those plans include supporting multi-tenant in LCM operations, right?
08:47:26 <h_asahina> In that spec, the proposed changes is just "Add tenant_id to VnfLcmSubscriptions and VnfLcmOpOccs". So, I can't see if this patch enables multi-tenant operation in actual LCM operations or just adding `tenant_id` field to DB.
08:52:04 <w-juso> There are three works related to adding this tenant ID.
08:53:39 <w-juso> the first is filtering of VnfLcmSubscriptions show/list.
08:53:56 <w-juso> the second is filtering of VnfLcmOpOccs show/list.
08:54:54 <w-juso> the third is filter of send notification.
08:56:44 <w-juso> Do you think there is anything else you need to do?
08:58:30 <h_asahina> How about instantion or termination?
08:58:37 <h_asahina> instantiation
09:02:46 <w-juso> I think intantiation and termination are no problem for adding this tenant ID. but, there are exist issue of 3 of proposed change in instantiation.
09:04:06 <h_asahina> You mean "3) Prohibiting VIM and VNF association created in different tenants"?
09:04:16 <w-juso> yes
09:06:48 <h_asahina> is this proposed change included in the patch?
09:08:30 <w-juso> this proposed change hasn't include in the https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/799022.
09:10:17 <h_asahina> that means Tacker allows users to create VNF instance on VIM of a different tenant even if the above patch is merged. Am I correct?
09:10:18 <w-juso> "3) Prohibiting VIM and VNF association created in different tenants" isn't include in the https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/799022.
09:10:46 <w-juso> yes
09:12:15 <h_asahina> I got it. so we can't say Tacker supports complete multi-tenant LCM operation yet.
09:15:07 <h_asahina> Thank you, but one more question. What is the reason that you did't implement the above proposed change to your patch? is there any problem?
09:17:37 <w-juso> Sorry, just it needed much time. The fix was done in our local but UT/FT is not finished yet.
09:21:43 <h_asahina> is difficult to include that proposed change to your patch before the relase?
09:23:42 <w-juso> UT is possible, but FT is hard to implement.
09:24:20 <w-juso> by RC1-release
09:24:56 <yasufum> sure
09:25:22 <h_asahina> ok. anyway you've already enables the proposed change "3) Prohibiting VIM and VNF association created in different tenants" in your local environment. if so, we can wait, can't we?
09:26:13 <yasufum> w-juso: Do you have any idea for release target? such as mid of yoga or so...
09:26:19 <w-juso> yes
09:28:40 <w-juso> I will release FT at Yoga cycle.
09:29:30 <w-juso> We can finish it by mid of Yoga
09:30:08 <yasufum> thx
09:30:28 <w-juso> I'd like to finish this work first at next Yoga cycle.
09:31:33 <yasufum> I’d appreciate if you share status of your work at the next vPTG so we can discuss more about.
09:31:49 <w-juso> sure
09:32:12 <yasufum> Anyway, we’d better to wrap up this meeting...
09:32:25 <yasufum> Do you have any other topic?
09:32:29 <yasufum> everyone
09:32:32 <masaki-ueno> Hi, i have one
09:32:42 <masaki-ueno> Not a discussion, but a review request.
09:32:43 <yasufum> OK, please go ahead
09:33:15 <masaki-ueno> Recently, I've uploaded a patch that fixes document of k8s VIM installation.
09:33:20 <masaki-ueno> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/807988
09:34:11 <yasufum> I’ll check it, thanks.
09:34:16 <masaki-ueno> I think this needs your review, so I appreciate any comments not only my change, but also any part in this document.
09:34:37 <masaki-ueno> That's all, thanks :)
09:37:47 <yasufum> We’ve asked to fix RC1 by 16th, so please help for accelarating to merge propsed patches.
09:37:50 <yasufum> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/808733
09:38:44 <yasufum> I’d like to close this meeting if no more comment.
09:39:42 <yasufum> ok
09:39:46 <yasufum> Thanks for joining, bye!
09:39:55 <takahashi-tsc> thanks!
09:39:55 <masaki-ueno> bye!
09:39:59 <h_asahina> thanks, bye.
09:40:00 <ueha> thanks, bye.
09:40:00 <manpreetk> thanks bye
09:40:02 <w-juso> thanks! bye
09:40:07 <yasufum> #endmeeting